I have 512MB of RAM and Firefox seems to have plenty of RAM.
I have 512MB of RAM and Firefox seems to have plenty of RAM.
>> I'll give you something: Athlon 64 X2 3800+. That's the CPU.
>> Proof? Here you go.
Very nice. Unfortunately, I dug for the hardware specs and only found out that it was on Vista Ultimate 32-bit, which requires 1GB of memory, and while it isn't explicitly stated, probably tested on a dual core CPU like the one you have. This hardly reflects 2004. It's clear I need to run my own benchmark.
>> FF2 does not compare to the newest versions and has no place in today's browser market.
Mmm, I don't know about that. Firefox2 would have been a decent browser - what screwed from earlier, "lighter" counterparts was that Mozilla's development thinking changed from creating the bare-bones, extensible browser to a more feature rich (and unfortunately memory hungry) application that new-age Web hippies demanded. I wouldn't dismiss Firefox as "old" because it still rendered pages acceptably, but it's rather poorly designed. IE4 is old. The Mozilla suite is old.
Fortunately, statements from the company show that they have learned their lesson and would only integrate things that 90% of the clientele used. If Firefox3 is well done and passes my benchmark acceptably, I will use it. I will be keeping my eye on "known issues" as well.
To my knowledge, FF is still single-threaded, so it doesn't really matter if it's dual core or not because I've never really seen cpu use rise above 50%.Originally Posted by citizen
Oh sure, but now that FF3 is out (or will be soon), it's time to stop comparing FF2, because it's well... slow, compared to FF3. Comparing FF2 to newer IE, Opera or Safari won't do. It's too unfair.Mmm, I don't know about that. Firefox2 would have been a decent browser - what screwed from earlier, "lighter" counterparts was that Mozilla's development thinking changed from creating the bare-bones, extensible browser to a more feature rich (and unfortunately memory hungry) application that new-age Web hippies demanded. I wouldn't dismiss Firefox as "old" because it still rendered pages acceptably, but it's rather poorly designed. IE4 is old. The Mozilla suite is old.
I would love to see them integrate popular extensions into the browser itself since extensions don't play nice with each other and are typically memory hungry.Fortunately, statements from the company show that they have learned their lesson and would only integrate things that 90% of the clientele used. If Firefox3 is well done and passes my benchmark acceptably, I will use it. I will be keeping my eye on "known issues" as well.
Elysia, citizen and I are on a different world. As of today FF2 becomes old simply by virtue of the fact we understand FF2 users upgrade regularly. But yesterday FF2 was still the browser, not FF3. This has nothing to do with the fact FF3 beta was out back then. It's simply to do the fact we develop websites and we need to test according to browser typical usage. That and also the fact we both until recently shared similar specs. Specs you don't have.
Meanwhile contrary to FF, IE users don't upgrade regularly. Not because they are dumb, but because IE users include the bulk of companies who may not, don't know how, or cannot afford an upgrade. For a reason IE6 is still a widely spread browser. So, as many others that develop webpages, we feel that whereas FF and Opera is indeed tested against the latest versions, IE and Safari have to be tested against old versions too. But I repeat, until today we didn't give a damn about FF3 other than for testing purposes.
As for what you read and where, honestly I don't give a damn. What matters is what happens on my computer. So stop posting what you read. If you have a PIII or PIV 512Mb machine go ahead keep posting on this thread. Otherwise do shutup. Too much noise and you don't know what you are talking about.
Robwhit? Can you please elaborate a little more? I also had "plenty" of memory left when I was using FF2 on may late laptop. However, it still remained that FF2 consumed more memory 2 hours after being fired up than it did when it just started. Memory leaks were common yes. But the browser perfomance also degraded as you used it for a few days even with minimal installation. In fact, alongside Safari, FF was always the slowest browser to load.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
No, that is your flawed opinion. I have stated facts and evidence that FF3 is faster than FF2, Opera and Safari. It also uses less memory than IE7.
These are facts. Don't deny them.
FF3 will run better than FF2 on most machines. I will not comment on web developing, because it's not an area I'm in.
You just can't avoid it, can you, you annoying little woman.
Did you read? We are talking of FF2, not FF3. Gawd! For pete's sake. Another thread I'm about to dump over you.
Until today FF2, not FF3 was our main concern. Simply because that's the browser most FF users had on their machines.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Yeah yeah, and the topic is about FF3. Why not keep it to the original discussion about embracing FF3?
Why does the Mozilla page still show Firefox 2? Even the west coast is nearly 4 hours into launch day.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
I was just thinking the same... But perhaps it's starting the 24H at "morning in the US" to achieve the best possible chance of hitting the record number of downloads?
--
Mats
Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
Only plan to download in a few days anyways. Otherwise I will feel part of the crowd. Not my thing.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I'm going to switch to the portable versions from now on, I just like having everything tied to the directory structure rather than my user folder and stuff. I am liking FF3's additions like the all seeing address bar and such. Makes it easier to organize and search my bookmarks. I'm pondering if I should forget about keeping a directory tree structure in my bookmarks folder or just tagging everything.
What do you mean ? I could browse the web with IE6 just as well as with IE7 or FF. Tabs are just another form of window grouping, it's not functionally different to group windows in one frame or in one taskbar. Sure, grouping them in one frame is nice, but not more. Just nice. Not a "function" in itself.
hth
-nv
She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."
When in doubt, read the FAQ.
Then ask a smart question.
Multiple-windows is silly. Download tab mix plus and you'll see why.
It is silly now because we got used to tabs. It was silly before when we got to know tabs.
It wasn't silly before tabs because... well, we didn't feel we needed them. As a result, tabs are nice. But it's not that they came to save us from an unbrowsable web. I think nvoigt means just this.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Apparently release date is 10:00 AM PST. Means 19:00 CET.
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
